alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1****RULE 13A-14(a) [SECTION 302] CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Andrew J. Ryback, Chief Financial Officer, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Plumas Bancorp (the Registrant);  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.     Date: March 13, 2006         /s/ Andrew Ryback         Andrew J. Ryback, Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH 

NO. 02-16-00212-CR 

Tommy George Dooley 

v. 

The State of Texas 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

From the 355th District Court 

of Hood County (CR13341) 

March 1, 2018 

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth 

(p)

JUDGMENT 

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth 

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
#### Rubin Sterngass et al., Respondents, v Meyer N. Cember, Appellant.

—In an action for indemnification, defendant *595appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Edelstein, J.), entered October 31, 1984, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment on the grounds of the Statute of Limitations and laches.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Plaintiffs’ action for indemnification was not time barred since it was instituted after payment was made but before the applicable six-year Statute of Limitations had run *(see, Bay Ridge Air Rights v State of New York,*44 NY2d 49, 54-55; *State of New York v Stewart’s Ice Cream Co.,*64 NY2d 83). Moreover, plaintiffs’ suit was not barred by laches, since plaintiffs were not guilty of delay which prejudiced defendant *(see, Sorrentino v Mierzwa,*25 NY2d 59, 63). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, *JJ.,*concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM METRIKA
SYSTEMS CORPORATION'S REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 3,1998
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                     OCT-03-1998
<CASH>                                14,039
<SECURITIES>                           6,021
<RECEIVABLES>                         27,337
<ALLOWANCES>                           2,598
<INVENTORY>                           13,339
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      72,138
<PP&E>                                17,230
<DEPRECIATION>                         5,406
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       112,774
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 36,288
<BONDS>                                3,616
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                  83
<OTHER-SE>                            67,878
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         112,774
<SALES>                               49,441
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      49,441
<CGS>                                 28,308
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         28,308
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       3,879
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         302
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       342
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        7,655
<INCOME-TAX>                           2,955
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    4,700
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                           4,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.57
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





Written
      Statement of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Traffix, Inc.
      ("Registrant"), hereby certifies that the Registrant’s annual Report on Form
      10-K for the year ended November 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with
      the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Registrant.








JEFFREY
      L. SCHWARTZ


Chairman
      and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CuraGen Corporation (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Timothy M. Shannon, M.D., Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and Sean A. Cassidy, Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                                                                |  |                             
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|Dated: August 7, 2008 |  | By:                                                            |  | /s/ Timothy M. Shannon, M.D.
|                      |  | Timothy M. Shannon, M.D.                                      
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer and President                         
|                      |  | (principal executive officer of the registrant)               
|                      |  |                                                               
|Dated: August 7, 2008 |  | By:                                                            |  | /s/ Sean A. Cassidy         
|                      |  | Sean A. Cassidy                                               
|                      |  | Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer                    
|                      |  | (principal financial and accounting officer of the registrant)
# C_2019139EN.01003201.xml

| 15.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 23 January 2019 — EY v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

(Case C-40/19)

(2019/C 139/30)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EY

Defendant: Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

Questions referred

| 1. | Can Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 31 of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council (known as the ‘Procedures Directive’) be interpreted, in the light of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as meaning that it is possible for effective judicial protection to be guaranteed in a Member State even if its courts cannot amend decisions given in asylum procedures but may only annul them and order that a new procedure be conducted? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 31 of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council (known as the ‘Procedures Directive’) be interpreted, in the light of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as meaning that it is possible for effective judicial protection to be guaranteed in a Member State even if its courts cannot amend decisions given in asylum procedures but may only annul them and order that a new procedure be conducted?

| 2. | Can Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 31 of Directive 2013/3[2]/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (known as the ‘Procedures Directive’) be interpreted, again in the light of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as meaning that legislation of a Member State which lays down a single mandatory time limit of 60 days in total for judicial proceedings in asylum matters, irrespective of any individual circumstances and without regard to the particular features of the case or any potential difficulties in relation to evidence, is compatible with those provisions? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 31 of Directive 2013/3[2]/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (known as the ‘Procedures Directive’) be interpreted, again in the light of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as meaning that legislation of a Member State which lays down a single mandatory time limit of 60 days in total for judicial proceedings in asylum matters, irrespective of any individual circumstances and without regard to the particular features of the case or any potential difficulties in relation to evidence, is compatible with those provisions?

---

(1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

---
2008 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-28-2008

Dooley v. Roche Lab Inc

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket

No. 07-1771

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Dooley v. Roche Lab Inc" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1318.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1318
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED 

FROM THE REPOSITORY
In the Senate of the United States, 

May 26, 2011. 

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (S. 990) entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for an additional 

temporary extension of programs under the Small Business 

Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for 

other purposes.’’, do pass with the following 

SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE AMENDMENT: 

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert 

the following: 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘PATRIOT Sunsets Ex3 tension Act of 2011’’. 

4 SEC. 2. SUNSET EXTENSIONS. 

5 (a) USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHOR6 IZATION ACT OF 2005.—Section 102(b)(1) of the USA PA7 TRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 

8 (Public Law 109–177; 50 U.S.C. 1805 note, 50 U.S.C. 1861 
2 

†S 990 EAS 

1 note, and 50 U.S.C. 1862 note) is amended by striking 

2 ‘‘May 27, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘June 1, 2015’’. 

3 (b) INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVEN4 TION ACT OF 2004.—Section 6001(b)(1) of the Intelligence 

5 Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 

6 108–458; 50 U.S.C. 1801 note) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘May 27, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘June 1, 2015’’. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 990 

SENATE AMENDMENT TO 

HOUSE AMENDMENT
# C_2021098EN.01002602.xml

| 22.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2021 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council

(Case T-124/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures - Right to private and family life - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality - Plea of illegality)

(2021/C 98/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, H. Marcos Fraile, S. Van Overmeire and M.-C. Cadilhac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2018 L 134, p. 47) and, second, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2018 L 314, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of New Jersey Mining
Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Fred W. Brackebusch, President, Treasurer and Director of New
Jersey Mining Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                     
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Date: November 14, 2005

By /s/ FRED W. BRACKEBUSCHFred W. Brackebusch,
President, Treasurer & Director

---
[No. 38678-6-I.

Division One.

August 25, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. William S. Mundy, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-8-06723-1, Michael S. Spearman, J., entered April 9, 1996. *Remanded*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 997 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 375
112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 997

                          [Report No. 112-527]

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 3, 2011

             Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

                             June 15, 2012

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend a water contract 
   between the United States and the East Bench Irrigation District.

 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``East Bench Irrigation District Water 
Contract Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO EXTEND WATER CONTRACT.

    The Secretary of the Interior may extend the contract for water 
services between the United States and the East Bench Irrigation 
District, numbered 14-06-600-3593, until the earlier of--
            (1) the date that is 4 years after the date on which the 
        contract would have expired if this Act had not been enacted; 
        or
            (2) the date on which a new long-term contract is executed 
        by the parties to the contract.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 375

112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 997

                          [Report No. 112-527]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend a water contract 
   between the United States and the East Bench Irrigation District.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 15, 2012

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
# C_2020068EN.01003202.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 26 November 2019 — NH v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-864/19)

(2020/C 68/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NH

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the President of the Court of 9 January 2020.

---
# C_2021053EN.01003601.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO (€$)

(Case T-665/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark €$ - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 53/47)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 July 2019 (Case R 1345/2018-1) regarding an application for registration of the figurative sign €$ as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---